MB1-00797

MB1-00797

The panel rejected the principal claimant's testimony as not credible due to material contradictions and omissions; it accepted the Minister's documentary evidence (Indonesian warrant and Interpol notice) establishing serious reasons to consider the claimant committed fraud/embezzlement, a presumed serious non-political crime which was not rebutted; therefore the claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) and cannot be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, and the dependent daughter's claim fails as derivative.

Citation
MB1-00797
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety Canada
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (exclusion Determination Under Article 1 F(b))
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; principal claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention; dependent daughter's claim dismissed as based on the mother's claim.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Findings, Serious Non Political Crime, Interpol Red Notice, Inadmissibility / Deportation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law International Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Credibility Findings Serious Non Political Crime +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Dependent Minor Claimant

Minister of Public Safety Canada

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (exclusion Determination Under Article 1 F(b))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention for committing a serious non-political crime
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's persecution allegations are credible
  3. 3 Whether the presumption that the alleged fraud is a serious crime was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the principal claimant's testimony as not credible due to material contradictions and omissions; it accepted the Minister's documentary evidence (Indonesian warrant and Interpol notice) establishing serious reasons to consider the claimant committed fraud/embezzlement, a presumed serious non-political crime which was not rebutted; therefore the claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) and cannot be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, and the dependent daughter's claim fails as derivative.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; principal claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention; dependent daughter's claim dismissed as based on the mother's claim.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied for principal claimant (excluded under Article 1F(b))
  • Refugee protection claim denied for dependent minor (derivative claim dismissed)